The Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration’s basic idea for cross-strait interaction is the so-called “1992 consensus” and getting each side of the Taiwan Strait to abstain from denying the existence of the other. There was some understanding for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) not agreeing to these premises and goals, but anyone who could or would be willing to understand the Ma administration’s actions is totally confused.
The administration considers it reasonable to remain silent or protest in a low-key manner when President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is referred to as “Mr” by China or when Beijing calls the Republic of China (ROC) the “Taiwan Area,” but harshly refutes any statements that Taiwan is a province or a part of China. But in what way is it respectful to the presidency and the ROC when Ma says that he is comfortable being referred to as “Mr Ma” and when he refers to Taiwan as an “area?”
Apart from terrifying the DPP, Ma has probably made the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) happy beyond its wildest dreams. How could this be construed as mutual non-denial? It is outright self-denial!
Ma’s handling of other matters has also left the public stunned and speechless. His administration was “pragmatic” to the point of humiliating Taiwan in seeking admission to the UN’s specialized organizations. When Chinese Ambassador to the UN Wang Guangya (王光亞) rejected Taiwan’s entrance, Taipei should have issued a strong protest. The Presidential Office spokesperson, however, spoke up for China as if he was the spokesperson for Beijing’s UN delegation.
Then there was Ma’s backtracking on national defense. Taiwan has cruise missiles with a reach of 500km to 600km, capable of attacking military facilities along the Fujian coast. We were about to make a breakthrough in the development of the Hsiung Feng 2E cruise missile, which would have reached of 800km to 1,000km, and would allow Taiwan to hit second-line military facilities such as airports.
A reasonable military strategy would dictate that development of these missiles be completed. If substantial military concessions are made between China and Taiwan, we could consider maintaining existing capability but forego mass production and deployment. However, considering China’s rapid increases in national defense spending, research and development and expanding deployments, the Ma administration had no reason to stop the Hsiung Feng 2E program. The Chinese probably didn’t believe their ears. Unfortunately for Taiwan, it was all too true.
When the DPP was in power, the national strategy was to maintain a clear definition of Taiwanese sovereignty and to state that there was one country on each side of the Taiwan Strait. This was in line with mainstream public opinion. However, this strategy caused a freeze in cross-strait relations and hurt relations between the pan-green and pan-blue camps as well as between China, the US and Taiwan.
The Ma administration has a different strategy and maybe they cannot be blamed for making the change given eight years of chilly relations. However, the government has gone directly against Taiwan’s sovereign interests and mainstream public opinion.
Simply put, the former Chen administration was characterized by a clear stance, but its overly hasty policies and rash actions hurt Taiwan’s interests and the feelings of the public.
Ma, however, has severely damaged Taiwan’s sovereignty, its fundamental interests and planted the seeds for long-term mistrust. The only way to resolve these problems is by kicking Ma out of office!
Lee Wen-chung is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of